Thank you.
I'm sorry. I thought my name was on the list. I apologize for coming in so late. I appreciate everyone's patience while I had colleagues fill in for me.
I was just up in the House delivering a speech on MP Aboultaif's bill for the living donor award. I have to say, Mr. Chair, coming out of that speech, we were talking about people who are facing life-and-death circumstances and need organs donated, and it put into perspective for me what we're talking about around this committee table.
There's no doubt that what my colleagues have presented is extremely important—we've said that—and I agree with them on all of their points. I think my colleague Monsieur Lemire's efforts are very noble. I said in the last meeting as well that I acknowledge, as we all do, that where there is room for improvement for government to acknowledge and improve its services, that's what this committee is here for. We're here in a non-partisan way to make taxpayer dollars go further and have the most impact.
However, there's a balance there as well, and I have to admit that when I read the motion, I was puzzled by my honourable colleague's presumption that it was in any way realistic to produce this in a reasonable amount of time. From what I understand, we could potentially be looking at millions of documents. I'm not sure if my colleague even has a proposal for who would go through all those documents. I presume, given that we are a bilingual society, that all of those would need to be translated, and translated well, to ensure that the understanding of both francophone and anglophone readers was honoured. That's going to take I don't even know how much time, how much expense and how much translation and interpretation expertise. It would be considerable.
It's particularly ironic that we're looking at a motion that is meant to honour the integrity of taxpayer dollars being spent in government services. At the same time, the scope of this motion would cost, I can presume, a tremendous number of taxpayer dollars. Given the amount of time it would take to produce and translate so many documents, and then review and redact them, I don't believe the cost would weigh out in the result.
I would support the points my colleagues have made and that I've heard since walking into the meeting at this point. The motion is asking for the production of all reports, correspondence, emails and documents over, I believe, an eight- or nine-year window, and that is tremendous, especially given that the program involves multiple federal departments. Employment and Social Development Canada, I believe, would be the lead on that, and the motion mentions Treasury Board Secretariat, Shared Services Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada. As well, particularly, the motion specifically names the PMO as a department from which documents are to be produced. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a motion that contemplates such a huge scope of material.
I would like to take all these elements in turn. I know I just walked in and I'm hoarding a bunch of time, but if the committee will indulge me, I want to address the breadth of this. If we're talking about January 1, 2017, to the present, that's the full life of the program, from what I understand. When it was launched by ESDC in 2017, I understand that the estimated cost was $1.7 billion, and that number's been revised twice. I understand it will probably change again. Over those eight years, this program has generated, as I said, an enormous volume of internal government correspondence and technical reports, procurement documents, government reviews, risk assessments and ministerial briefings.
My colleague's request for production is for “all” of that material. It's not targeted. It's not a targeted audit inquiry in any sense. It's really more of a dragnet used to catch everything it possibly could in a very haphazard manner that basically eviscerates and eludes all of the practices of transparency, accountability and privacy that we value as parliamentarians and as Canadians.
I understand that there are circumstances in which a dragnet of this nature is appropriate. If this committee had evidence of specific wrongdoing—for example, if we had reason to believe that documents were being concealed, the Auditor General's access had been impeded or testimony given before this committee had been deliberately misleading—then I suppose that, yes, a broad production order might be justified.
However, the Auditor General's report alleges none of those serious findings. They're findings that the department has acknowledged and accepted. When the deputy minister appeared before this committee—it would have been back in December 2023, before my time as an elected official—ESDC stated that the government welcomed the report and its recommendations. There's no dispute over that. The departments agreed. The Treasury Board president agreed. That's all on the record.
If the departments have accepted the Auditor General's recommendations, what additional evidentiary purpose is served by demanding every email exchanged since 2017? The answer, I would submit, is that the purpose is not evidentiary. That's, I think, the logical conclusion that we would have to reach. The purpose appears to be more political. While that may be a legitimate exercise in some committees, I don't believe that's what this committee is for.
The second is the inclusion of the PMO. This deserves particular attention. The PMO is not a department. It does not have operational responsibility for the BDM program. ESDC has that responsibility. Treasury Board Secretariat has oversight responsibility. Shared Services Canada has infrastructure responsibility, and Public Services and Procurement Canada has procurement responsibility. These are the organizations that the Auditor General audited. These are the organizations whose conduct this committee has the mandate to review. The PMO is included in this motion not because there's any evidence that the PMO was operationally involved in managing the BDM program but because including it, I can only presume, raises the political stakes of the document production. It signals that the motion's logical purpose or main purpose—I think any logical person would arrive at this conclusion—is not audit follow-through but rather an attempt to implicate the political executive in the management failings of a public service program. That is a legitimate political objective, perhaps, in question period, but I don't think it's the mandate of this committee.
Now, I anticipate that my colleagues will ask, “What if there is PMO involvement? What if there are documents that show political direction to ESDC that contributed to the program's delays?” I would say that's a hypothesis. You have to show me evidence that supports the hypothesis, and I'll be among the first to call for targeted document production. However, a hypothesis is not a reason to issue a blanket production order. Evidence-based scrutiny means starting with evidence, not going on a fishing expedition for it.
Third—and this is a concern I want to spend some time on—is the question of what this committee intends to do with the documents if they are produced. The motion calls for documents to be produced with redactions applied in accordance with the Privacy Act and with ATIP obligations. That's entirely appropriate, but it raises the question of what happens next. As I said, who reviews these documents? What's the committee's analytical framework for sorting through years, nearly a decade, of internal correspondence from multiple federal departments? What witnesses will be called to contextualize what the documents show? What is the study plan? A production order without a study plan is not scrutiny; it's just document accumulation. I've seen through modern political history how document accumulation can work, how the spectacle of a large production order becomes the point, and how the actual analysis of the documents produced becomes secondary or forgotten entirely. I believe that's a risk that we take with this motion, and that's not what this committee should be doing.
I do want to address the question of relevance to seniors and vulnerable Canadians because I genuinely believe that my colleague cares very deeply for seniors and vulnerable Canadians. I think we all do. I think that's safe to say. My colleague has spoken at length numerous times around this committee table, as well as in the House, about his concern for seniors. He speaks about the 60,000 seniors who have been referenced in the motion before us.
I've been droning on for a long time, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I'll allow someone else to speak.
